Comments on: In Larry Craig’s Corner, the A.C.L.U.http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/
The New York Times News BlogMon, 10 Oct 2011 14:02:10 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.9https://static01.nyt.com/images/misc/NYT_logo_rss_250x40.pngNYThttp://www.nytimes.com
By: Davidhttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115575
Tue, 05 Feb 2008 07:53:13 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115575Bob – all depends what you mean by “right-winger”. You can call a totalitarian like Hitler a “right-winger,” a moralist like Jerry Falwell a “right-winger,” and a libertarian like Ayn Rand a “right-winger”. It’s such a fluid term that it becomes pretty meaningless term in this kind of debate.
]]>By: Bobhttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115573
Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:03:28 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115573Just the personcal opinion of a self-avowed right-winger, but who also feels that any propositioning between consenting adults is noone’s business but theirs — it really strikes me funny how there are so many rants against the ”
right-wingers” above, but the offense, arrest, etc. all happened in a left-wing state, with the left-wingers presumably voting to put those laws on the books in the first place.
]]>By: Christian Walkerhttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115571
Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:29:27 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115571The ACLU is despicable.

We must stand up for real American hero’s like this police officer who said,
“No longer will homosexuals solicit sex to one another”, in a Christian nation like ours, we must stand up for our Christian values. What if Larry Craig had grabbed your two year old son’s penis and put it into his mouth? Would you defend him then? What he did was a gateway to child pornography, beastiality, and even the Holocaust!

Vote Huckabee 08!

]]>By: Emersonhttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115569
Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:01:35 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115569The defense is trying to have the plea overturned on a technicality of the most extreme desperation. They are trying to get the court to agree that since there was not more than one “victim” — using as their reasoning the use of the word “others” in the law itself — the conviction should not stand.

However, the Minnesota law does not require that there be ANY victims, so the multi-victim technicality is not going to work. The law covers behaviors that one could reasonably expect would or might TEND to alarm or anger others. In actuality, NOBODY actually NEED be alarmed or angered.

I can only speak for myself, but if I were sitting in a private stall and a man’s foot and hand came repeatedly into my space, I certainly would feel alarmed and/or angered.

Now to the ACLU. They are AGAIN presenting an argument about a section of the law that has already been deemed unconstitutional and invalidated by Minnesota courts and was NOT used as a basis for the arrest and conviction of Larry Craig. While the unconstitutional section was invalidated, the remainder of the law stands intact.

They did this in their last amicus brief. THEIR ARGUMENT IS MOOT AS THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED. Indeed, it was decided 30 years ago, they were told this last time (if they bothered to read the judge’s decision), and here they try to present it again! Are they not paying attention, or are they hoping that if they keep presenting the same garbage, maybe one day a judge won’t notice and will decide in their favor?

While the defense desperately clings to a technicality with respect to the use of the word “others” in the law, when it comes to actual sexual behavior, they and the ACLU become strangely very NON-technical.

LARRY CRAIG WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR ENGAGING IN OR SOLICITING SEX.

I and many if not most other people believe that he WAS soliciting sex, but that isn’t illegal.

What is illegal (“disorderly conduct”) is putting one’s body parts into another person’s restroom stall, in which stall that person has a right to and an expectation of privacy. Purposely and repeatedly putting one’s body parts into another’s most private space is what is at issue here. It can be said that engaging in this behavior might tend to alarm or anger others.

Larry Craig pled guilty in a petition to the court. He was not coerced, he was advised to seek legal counsel, he had PLENTY of time to get his signed document back to the judge, and no new evidence has been presented that would entice one to believe that he wasn’t doing exactly what we all suspect he was doing.

The Senator is guilty, just as he admitted in his submission to the court.

]]>By: Brucehttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115567
Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:49:38 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115567Now that Larry Craig was found not guilty he is allowed to use this brand new Madison Square Park toilet in Manhattan.
]]>By: Chrishttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115565
Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:46:36 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115565Well… public urination is illegal, but one is allowed to urinate in a “public” washroom. Hence, actions taken in a “public” washroom aren’t legally restricted in exactly the same manner as in the usual public situation.

It may be a “public” washroom, but it isn’t “in public”, per se, so what he did should be legal. Still a hypocrite, though, along with all the Republicans and many Democrats.

]]>By: olohttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115563
Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:41:47 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115563HMmmm,
Whereas hitting on someone is not a crime, and
Whereas, engaging in consensual sex is OK, and
Whereas, the transfer of money is lawful, if gifted or in exchange for anything lawful,
…then how does two or even three rights, make a wrong?
]]>By: Janahttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115561
Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:15:51 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115561If you read the email carefully you find that it is not the ACLU that says that sex in bathroom stalls is private, it was the Minnesota Supreme Court.
They are merely referencing an existing law. If people are outraged that the act is still legal then they should go the legislature to fix it.
]]>By: Berthttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115557
Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:45:17 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115557Mr. Longnecker;

This is not something that only exists in the mind of the officer. When Craig pled guilty it became a public record. I understand that he also agreed not to contest the judges decision. Case closed!!

]]>By: Davidhttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115559
Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:48 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115559marik7, You suggest that a good reason for not knocking is that the door is “often-ineffective” or “broken-locked”. How does a door get so “ineffective” or “broken-locked” that it is unable to transmit the sound of a knock to whoever may be inside? Peeping through door cracks is suspicious behavior. Period.
]]>By: marik7http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115555
Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:50:42 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115555Public bathrooms are just that–public. On occasion, one has to look through the crcks to see whether the booth is occupied, due to the construction of some boths or people who refuse to stretch their feet out to show that they’re there.

How can it possibly be that anyone expects no one to try to see whether the stall is occupied (without knocking on the often-ineffective, broken-locked door)?

]]>By: Jayhttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115553
Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:12:43 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115553As is common for the NYT, in its rush to report on a story that is embarassing to a Republican, it has all of its facts and quotes incorrect. This is so bad, it is actually pretty funny. Check this out.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief yesterday, essentially arguing that a bathroom stall is a private place and that Sen. Craig was therefore allowed to seek sexual contact there. The NYT then ran this post all day today.

The only problem is that the brief cited above is a brief from this past September that was filed in District Court and advanced primarily a First Amendment argument. The brief that the ACLU filed yesterday (which as of the time I am writing this has not yet been posted to its web site), was filed with the Minnesota Court of Appeals and dealt with a privacy argument. Check out the title page of the brief that the NYT linked to above and compare it against the MN App. Court’s electronic docket available here:

So, the upshot of all of this is that the NYT has posted a story that quotes the wrong brief, and a bunch of super intelligent liberals are sitting around blogging about different legal arguments than those that were actually filed by the ACLU yesterday.

Gotta love that attention to detail…

]]>By: A Gay Guyhttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115551
Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:49:27 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115551I find this whole thing absolutely absurd. I am a gay man of 62 who lived on Chicago’s lakefront for 23 years, and I think I am quite well-informed about sex in public places. There in nothing remotely private about a stall in a public restroom. How about the stalls that don’t have doors, are they private, too? How about the space in front of a urinal, is that also private? Larry Craig, like every other gay man in America, knows that it is against the law to have sex in a public restroom. This includes privately owned public restrooms in places like department stores. All gay men know that both soliciting sex and having sex will get you arrested. In part, the laws exisit to protect people who are not interested in being solicited for sex in a public place – including minors. And finally, all gay men, including Larry Craig, know that this behavior is a good way to get your head “busted” when you approach the wrong guy.

Larry Craig is a real dog for continuing this fight. He is as tawdry as Bill Clinton. What an image for the American People, a United States Senator crawling around the floor or an airport restroom. He should have done the right thing back when he was arrested – resign, shut up, and go back home to Idaho.

“To correct someone’s comment above, soliciting sex (which is legal among consenting adults) is NOT the same as soliciting paid sex from a prostitute (which is soliciting of an illegal activity).”

I am curious about this notion. First, if, in a public place, an adult solicits sex from another adult, how does he or she know if that person consents to the solicitation prior to the solicitation. Must the solicitor first ask for permission to solicit? Second, does the context of the setting play a role in the legality of soliciting sex in a public place? It is safe to assume that in a “singles bar” solicitations for sex are not uncommon and few, perhaps none, of the patrons would consider seeking the prosecution of sexual solicitors. But, can a man stand on a subway platform and solicit sex from every woman he sees until he gets a positive response or simply wears himself out trying. Is there a quantitative limit? is it o.k. for him to make 50 solicitations but not a hundred? Three, but not ten? Or does he only get one shot within a given time period?

]]>By: Claudia Jelinskihttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/comment-page-2/#comment-115547
Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:12:54 +0000http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/#comment-115547The ACLU position in this particular situation is skewed. Having private sex in a PUBLIC restroom, is no longer private sex. Proposition or flirting for private sex in a PUBLIC restroom is no longer private, it becomes PUBLIC. Flirting or proposition for sex at a wedding or party where a hall or ballroom has been rented, now that is no longer a public venue, it becomes a private one. Behaviors, such as Larry Craig displayed in an International Airport, which is a PUBLIC transit authority restroom, are lewd and propositional and absolutely interferes with public privacy expectations. To protect EVERYONE when the PUBLIC en masse uses the facilities, every one has the right personal space and privacy. If Larry Craig was displaying those behaviors with a colleage at work, it would be seen as sexual harrasment, whether the colleage is male or female. So the venue does make a difference.
]]>